(no subject)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
Date: 01/10/01

OK, OK, RDF does a fairly good job of turning syntax into triples (i.e., a
graph).  But you know what?  I don't care at all about these triples!  As
far as I am concerned, this could be Lists, or Sets, or just about
anything.  I view this aspect of RDF as conceptuatlly no different from
just about any mapping into just about any semi-structured data formalism.

What I care about is the other part of RDF and RDFS (or, at least, what the
other part should be).  

I care about sequences, sets, bags, and alternatives.  
I care about non-ground statements.
I care about reification (really, I do) and higher-order and modal constructs.
I care about type theories with type hierarchies and defined types.
I care about lots of other related notions.

RDF and RDFS provide me absolutely nothing for any of these, because they
provide me with nothing more than a mapping into triples---no domain
theory, no axiomatization, not even a decent informal description---for the
meaning of any of these things.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST